US V Nixon

Distinguished Group Of 25 Historians Advocating Removal Of Donald Trump Presidential Candidacy Under 14th Amendment Section Three Of The Constitution

admin 4 Comments

The upcoming Supreme Court case regarding whether Donald Trump should be removed from ballots in Colorado and nationwide for the Presidential Election of 2024 will be argued this Thursday, and a distinguished group of 25 historians has submitted briefs supporting Colorado in the case Trump V Anderson.

Among the reputable historians giving views supportive of such action are:

Allan J. Lichtman of American University
Nell Irvin Painter of Princeton University
James McPherson of Princeton University
Thomas C. Holt of the University of Chicago
Brooks D. Simpson of Arizona State University
Lawrence Powell of Tulane University
Peter C. Hoffer of University of Georgia
Steve Hahn of New York University

There are a multitude of conservative thinkers and authors who also believe Trump inspired the 2021 US Capitol Insurrection, and should be banned under the 14th Amendment Section 3.

The question is whether the conservative dominated US Supreme Court will follow through on their beliefs in “Textualism” and “Originalism”, or whether they will demonstrate their hypocrisy, with most observers thinking the latter will happen!

The reputation of the Court as an institution, and of its nine members, is at stake.

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas should recuse himself in this case, since his wife was involved in the Insurrection.

And Chief Justice John Roberts should want his Court to be seen in history as reputable!

Earlier Courts unanimously repudiated Richard Nixon in US V Nixon (1974), and Bill Clinton in Clinton V Jones (1997), so the present Court has a heavy burden to deal with for history!

Momentous Time For Supreme Court With Colorado Court Banning Of Trump On 2024 Election Primary Ballot!

admin 4 Comments

The moment has arrived for the US Supreme Court to face a tough decision that will affect the Presidential Election of 2024.

Should they uphold the Colorado Supreme Court and agree to the banning of Donald Trump from the 2024 Primary Ballot, due to his involvement in setting up and inciting the January 6, 2021 US Capitol Insurrection?

The Colorado Court’s decision is based on the 14th Amendment Section 3, added to the Constitution after the Civil War, and seemingly appropriate to this blogger to be employed in this present situation!

If they do, that would open up other states also employing the same strategy through lawsuits to the state Supreme Courts.

Respected conservative experts agree that this is proper, including J. Michael Luttig, a retired Appeals Court Judge, who is highly regarded, and conservative attorney George Conway!

That would, effectively, undermine, and likely prevent Donald Trump from being able to win the Presidency, and effectively saving American democracy from the threat he represents to the Constitution and rule of law!

There is no way to forecast the result, but it could be a case as significant as US V Nixon in 1974, which led to the resignation of Richard Nixon from the Presidency!

A gut feeling that the Supreme Court will vote 7-2 to uphold the action of the Colorado Supreme Court, with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito in dissent, but with all three Trump appointees showing principle, guts, and courage, as three such Justices appointed by Richard Nixon did so in July 1974!

Supreme Court Once Again Stands Up To Presidential Assertion Of Executive Privilege, And Limits It!

Ronald 3 Comments

The Supreme Court of the United States for the third time in 48 years has stood up to a President who asserted “Executive Privilege”, and was smacked down by a court including members appointed by the President who was involved in the Court case.

First, we had US V Nixon in July 1974, having to do with Richard Nixon and the Watergate tapes, which the Court unanimously, 8-0, ordered them handed over to the Watergate Special Prosecutor and the House Judiciary Committee. This led within weeks to the resignation of Richard Nixon. Associate Justice William Rehnquist recused himself from the case, appropriately, as he had worked earlier in the Nixon Justice Department, but the other three Nixon appointees, Chief Justice Warren Burger, and Associate Justices Harry Blackmun and Lewis Powell, joined the unanimous decision.

Next, we had Clinton V Jones, 1997, which involved the issue of whether Bill Clinton could be required to testify in a civil trial while in office, a case brought by Paula Jones against Governor Clinton for sexual harrassment. The Court unanimously, 9-0, including his two appointees, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, ruled that he had to give testimony, and this helped to lead to his impeachment in 1998. So there was no immunity from civil law litigation for acts done before taking office, and unrelated to the office.

And now, we have Trump V Thompson, a lawsuit brought by Donald Trump against the January 6 House Committee investigation of the January 6, 2021 Insurrection, in the name of Chairman Bennie Thompson. So documents to show the series of events leading to the Insurrection are now to be made available to the House committee, as it investigates the wrong doing of the 45th President. This is a major victory, and all three Trump Supreme Court nominees—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—voted with the majority 8-1, with only Clarence Thomas in oppostion.

This is a conflict of interest by Thomas, who should have recused himself, as William Rehnquist did in the Nixon case. Since Thomas’s wife was involved in the planning of the January 6 Insurrection, encouraging lawlessness, this should be grounds for removal of Clarence Thomas from the Supreme Court, highly unlikely, but would be appropriate!

US V Nixon; Clinton V Jones; And Now Trump Lawsuit Against January 6 Committee Appeal To Supreme Court!

Ronald Leave a comment

The Supreme Court has come out with two decisions in the past half century that made it clear of the limits of Presidential power!

In 1974, in US V Nixon, the Supreme Court, including three appointees of President Richard Nixon, unanimously by an 8-0 vote, declared that Nixon had to hand over the Watergate tapes to the Special Prosecutor, leading to the resignation of Nixon from the Presidency within weeks!

In 1997, in Clinton V Jones, the Supreme Court, including two appointees of President Bill Clinton, unanimously by a 9-0 vote, declared that a President had no immunity from civil law litigation in federal court for acts done before taking office. This case involved the sexual harrassment charge brought by Paula Jones against Governor Bill Clinton

Clinton’s evasiveness in testifying in court about Paula Jones led to the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, and his impeachment by the House of Representatives in 1998, although found not guilty by the Senate in the impeachment trial in 1999.

Now, Donald Trump wants “executive privilege” to be in effect to prevent evidence in White House records of what he was doing on January 6, 2021 involving the Capitol Hill Insurrection, to be presented to the January 6 House Committee, investigating the events of that day. President Joe Biden has authorized waiver of such privileges, since Trump is a former President.

Despite having three Trump appointments to the Supreme Court, the strong likelihood is that the Court will, unanimously, reject such arguments, as earlier Courts did involving Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.

If such does not happen, which seems like a long shot, then the Court will have besmirched its reputation for the long term, and the reputation of Chief Justice John Roberts will be damaged forever.

And that will promote the likelihood of attempts to add four new members to a Court which will be the most condemned and pilloried since the time of Chief Justice Roger Taney during the Civil War!

Presidents In Conflict With The Judiciary Are Nothing New Historically, But Trump Could Be The Biggest Threat Yet To Our Constitutional System

Ronald 1 Comment

The conflict of President Donald Trump with the judiciary is not the first time there has been a challenge from a President to the judicial branch.

Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson had regular conflict with Chief Justice John Marshall and the federal courts in the first third of the 19th century.

Abraham Lincoln had vehement disagreements with Chief Justice Roger Taney in the era of the Civil War.

Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson both found the Supreme Court as standing in the way of progressive reform in the early 20th century.

Franklin D. Roosevelt was so frustrated by a conservative Supreme Court negating important legislation of the New Deal in the mid 1930s, that he proposed the idea of adding six new Justices to the Court in 1937. This came to be known as the “Court Packing” plan, and was soundly defeated, including by members of his own Democratic Party.

Richard Nixon had issues with the rulings of the Earl Warren Court before he was President, and the continued Warren influence on the Court under his successor, Warren Burger. And, Nixon was stopped dead in his tracks in US. V. Nixon in 1974, forcing him to hand over the Watergate Tapes to the Special Prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, leading him to resign the Presidency in August 1974.

Barack Obama was critical of the John Roberts Court on its conservative decisions early on in his Presidency in 2010.

And now, Donald Trump has unleashed what many consider the strongest challenge to the whole federal judiciary, alarming many constitutional experts as far more dangerous and threatening to the checks and balances of the Constitution and the separation of powers.

It is clear that Trump has declared war on the judiciary, but it could be that the Roberts Court will smack back at him when cases regarding his abuse of power make it to the Court, so Trump may be “hoist by hid own petard”, and regret the attacks he has made on the whole court system.

Matthew Whitaker Becoming Acting Attorney General Creates A Constitutional Crisis Over Robert Mueller Investigation

Ronald 1 Comment

The decision of President Donald Trump to fire Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and temporarily replace him with Matthew Whitaker, who has clearly stated his belief in 2017 that there should not be a continuation of the Robert Mueller investigation into Russian Collusion, is an alarm bell in the night.

It is now clear that Trump has decided to take action on Mueller before he can issue a report, and before the Democrats take over the House of Representatives, and start investigations and issue subpoenas to the Trump Administration.

Trump’s bizarre performance in his nearly hour and a half press conference yesterday makes one worry as to what will happen next, as Trump is acting totally bipolar, whether he is or not.

The rumor that Donald Trump, Jr. may soon be indicted by Robert Mueller is probably the reason behind the suddenly rash action by Trump to fire Sessions.

But ordinarily, the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, who has been overseeing the Mueller investigation, and who hired Robert Mueller in the first place, should be the Acting Attorney General.

So many observers think we are on the verge of repeating the “Saturday Night Massacre” of Richard Nixon in October 1973, which led to impeachment by the House Judiciary Committee, the decision of the Supreme Court in US V. Nixon, and Nixon’s resignation in August 1974.

US V Nixon; Clinton V Jones; And Now US V Trump?

Ronald 6 Comments

In 1974, the Supreme Court, by 8-0 vote, told Richard Nixon that he had to hand over the Watergate tapes to the Special Prosecutor, which led to Nixon’s resignation a few weeks later.

In 1997. the Supreme Court, by 9-0 vote, told Bill Clinton that he could not avoid trial on sexual harassment charges brought by Paula Jones, simply because of his Presidential duties, which led to the impeachment and trial in 1998-1999.

The point of these two cases, US V Nixon, and Clinton V Jones, is that the President is not in total charge, and can be held to account by the Court system of America.

Donald Trump is about to get the same reality check, as the case involving the ban of all immigration from seven Muslim nations goes to the 9th Circuit Court, after a District Court Judge showed courage in stopping the enforcement of the President’s executive order. This is seen by most legal experts as unconstitutional, as a violation of the First and 14th Amendments, and being used against nations that have sent no terrorists to America, while other nations that have, are not included in the ban.

Donald Trump seems to think he is above the law, and his authoritarian, autocratic and tyrannical behavior must be nipped in the bud right now!